Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Feds shouldn't intrude in marriage contract

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:00 pm

The California Supreme Court has mandated that all 58 counties in the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 16.

To make things interesting, the California Marriage Amendment has qualified for the November election. Voters will get to decide on Nov. 4 whether the state constitution will be amended to limit marriage to that between one man and one woman.

A question I haven't heard asked is: Why should anyone have to obtain permission from the government in order to get married? Until the 13th century, marriage was a private contract between two families. That is when the church decreed that a "licit" marriage was one sanctioned by church officials. Marriages performed out of the church were illicit, but they continued. In the 16th century, European nations began to set rules for legal marriages. The American Colonies only required that marriages be registered. Marriages were considered contracts between individuals, supported by both families involved. By the end of the 19th century, governments prohibited whites from marring blacks, Asians or Indians. In other words, whites could only marry other whites. Although the courts overturned laws against inter-racial marriages, governments didn't want to relinquish their control over the marriage contract.

At the present time, all states require those wishing to marry obtain permission from the government by applying for a license. There are minimal age requirements and some states require a blood test for sexually transmitted disease. The state also requires that the ceremony be performed by a state recognized clergy or a government agent such as a judge.

It is time that freedom-loving people say "enough" to the immoral governmental intrusion into this sacred private contract. There is no moral reason for government to be a third party to the marriage contract. The legislature should do the right thing and repeal sections 300 through 536 of the California Family Code. Other sections can be repealed at a later time. The time is right. Let's do it.

Cliff Shirk Sr.

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

19 comments:

  • posted at 2:05 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Nice Jeff. Thanks.

     
  • posted at 6:01 pm on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    lodi boy wrote, 'I'm sorry. Just scared I guess... What if we are going to hell in a hand basket?'We are each individually responsible for the quality and destination of the hand basket we choose to be delivered in.No one can be forced into believing or accepting anything. The adage that 'holding on to something (or someone) too tightly usually results in its struggling to be free' is never truer than when discussing religion.My Christian background has always emphasized that we are to lead others to Christ through love, kindness and compassion. Haranguing those that we would like to join the fold will never cause them to follow; they will do all that they can to get away from us. And frankly I cannot blame them.Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong are perfectly within their right to believe so. They are also within their right to attempt to enact legislation that supports those beliefs. However, no one has the right to violate man's law simply because it runs counter to their beliefs and they certainly have no right or authority to cause harm to anyone because of what they believe.

     
  • posted at 2:30 pm on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Mazie, Gio, this one's for you...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/paraguay_same_sex_weddingIvan, sam, enjoy.

     
  • posted at 7:27 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    I'm sorry. Just scared I guess... What if we are going to hell in a hand basket? Is it going to be a pretty 'Martha Stewart' inspired one?Or is it going to be a dinky one that you'd fine at Michael's arts and crafts clearance bins for 99 cents?

     
  • posted at 3:36 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    lodi boy wrote 'STOP USING THE BIBLE FOR ABSURD REASONING.'This statement is patently 'absurd.' Issuing such an 'order' flies in the face of the concept of 'opinion,' the very reason why these blogs exist.Telling anyone to 'shut up' as a response in any debate is tantamount to waving the white flag.

     
  • posted at 6:16 pm on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    Yeah Mazie!! You go girl- lookin up all the dirty parts in the Bible.I never even thought about that "marrying" animals bit, and I'm dogbark.

     
  • posted at 5:17 pm on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    In the Bible there are many examples of men obtaining the permission from the father of the woman he wished to marry. There are no examples of men seeking permission from the various governments.

     
  • posted at 5:03 pm on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    STOP USING THE BIBLE FOR ABSURD REASONING. It also says 'eating shellfish is an abomination' and'anyone who works on the sabbath is to be stoned to death'...Mazie, do you stone people who work on Sundays to death? Do you scold the ingestion of shellfish?

     
  • posted at 2:34 pm on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    Gio, I agree. I have friends whose first child was a hermaphrodite. I always thought they should have put their adorable child out of IT's misery.But no, they let IT live. Even though she is a gorgeous female happily maried with 2 kids, I always felt IT does not have the right to be happy. IT was born with too much plumbing.Gio, I sure you would agree that IT should have been disposed of at birth, or at least never been allowed to marry.Ivan, I know I have your support.

     
  • posted at 9:31 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    Your analysis intrigues me, Gio. Are you suggesting that instead of issuing marriage licenses, the state ought to be conducting plumbing inspections?

     
  • posted at 7:54 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    Gio: I can't say how happy it makes me to see that you share my opposition to allowing infertile people marry. Marriage is for reproduction. Those who can't reproduce have no business getting married. I saw the other day how two 90 year olds were getting married and it made me sick. There is no way those geezers are having kids. We need to act now to enact laws that will stop travesties like this from occurring.I know I have your support!

     
  • posted at 7:20 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2008.

    Posts:

    "There is no moral reason for government to be a third party to the marriage contract."If the plumbing matches, it isn't a marriage. You can call it whatever you want, but it isn't a marriage. That term is dedicated to men and women couples for the purpose of reproduction. Plumbing fits. The people already voted on this before, so why are we having to defend our own legislation. Maybe it would be better to create a bill that will throw activist judges pushing through own agenda instead of following the law.

     
  • posted at 10:09 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    Leonard wrote, 'Perhaps if the editor had read the letter that was addressed to them, this mix up could have been avoided?'It has become clearly apparent that all one needs to do is transmit a burp to the LNS for inclusion in the Letters-to-the-Editor section. I do not mean to suggest that this particular letter falls within this description but there have been recent offerings that have caused some here to respond with a simple 'huh?'

     
  • posted at 6:54 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    Leonard wrote, 'Perhaps if the editor had read the letter that was addressed to them, this mix up could have been avoided?'It has become clearly apparent that all one needs to do is transmit a burp to the LNS for inclusion in the Letters-to-the-Editor section. I do not mean to suggest that this particular letter falls within this description but there have been recent offerings that have caused some here to respond with a simple 'huh?'

     
  • posted at 6:49 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    As long as marital status is required for the determination of certain rights pertinent to married couples, entitlements, insurance policies, etc., the need for some sort of verifiable record will be necessary. The government is the best entity in place at this time to manage this massive amount of data for relatively easy retrieval. Also, as long as there are laws restricting activities directly related to the institution of marriage, i.e., polygamy, I don't see how relying upon the church (to include all churches that perform marriage ceremonies) to enforce these laws would be practical.It seems to me that the author either failed to consider these types of issues or dismissed them as irrelevant in order to further his contention that the government should simply 'butt out'.

     
  • posted at 5:55 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    Mazie wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:37 AM:" Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Read the Bible. It is a sin to be with someone of the same sexDo you claim to be a follower of Christ?

     
  • posted at 5:54 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    I think it is kind of amusing to observe the ham handed way in which the LNS applies labels to these letters. The header for this one claims that the author is discussing Federal intrusion while the letter itself is clearly and specifically discussing state laws, not federal codes.Perhaps if the editor had read the letter that was addressed to them, this mix up could have been avoided?

     
  • posted at 5:08 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    As long as marital status is required for the determination of certain rights pertinent to married couples, entitlements, insurance policies, etc., the need for some sort of verifiable record will be necessary. The government is the best entity in place at this time to manage this massive amount of data for relatively easy retrieval. Also, as long as there are laws restricting activities directly related to the institution of marriage, i.e., polygamy, I don't see how relying upon the church (to include all churches that perform marriage ceremonies) to enforce these laws would be practical.It seems to me that the author either failed to consider these types of issues or dismissed them as irrelevant in order to further his contention that the government should simply 'butt out'.

     
  • posted at 3:37 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Read the Bible. It is a sin to be with someone of the same sex. No wonder this world is going to Hell. Next we will be able to marry our animals, which is also against God's laws.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 6 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Facts and truth are not the same thing to you, Kevin Paglia? Your deceptive quote-mining does a disservice to Sagan; the spirituality of wh…

More...

Posted 7 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Science tries to give you knowledge, Kevin. Nothing more. You have to find meaning for yourself. You don't need science or religion to t…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Treacy, my readings about the PRA absolutely confirm what you are saying. I doubt any "picture" will change that.

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Kevin, we need to clarify definitions and be honest about facts. Science is not a religion or a "belief system." To say that is…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

While I am more of a humanities gal myself, I do hear what you are saying, even if I'm not as enthusiastic. (I still have nightmares from …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists